you misunderstand the purpose of democracy... the purpose of democracy is for the majority to jack the minority...
however there is a flaw in representative democracy, your representatives are easily bought (and the masses are stupid), and so a rich shrewd minority instead jacks you.
democracy dies when the majority decides they are getting outplayed, and want a strong man to take care of them.
@jordan567890 Why do you think democracy in itself is a good institution? Its the tyranny of the majority. Its two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Hey I broadly agree with what you say but a lot of the time when you talk about sate monopolies you almost ubiquitously fail to mention why people say they ssupport these things
education is a prime example
when you talk about how deregulating the education system would allow the most effective methods to prevail people tend to say this is far too open to abuse and some body has to be the watchdog
you and I know the present system is abusive but engaging with these central arguments is key
they're not really getting a great deal compared to private sector
when you say "we can see how much they needed" you're being a cold motherfucker
we are talking mostly people who have dedicated their lives to children believeing they were doing the right thing, they did their degrees in teaching (which they are legally bound to do) and then went into teaching and worked really hard, sure the education is corrupt but most people go in with good intentions
It is natural for the strong to bullly the weak, yet you rail against it Stef. Yet you want others to accept this, when it comes to situations you have no experiance or care about. nice hypocracy. Other than that, good video
Of course Stefan you are not getting free money are you? or are you with your plea for donations from your sheeple. So the reason you are a philosopher is to to help raise the costs of evil? The words I here most from all your videos regardless the topic are evil, children, society, force, and the greatness of yourself. Who would calculate the hours that one does via education ? You do, NPD is what you may have. you should seek help from an independant professional. What i hear is ur childhood.
I guess the past was great, for some, certainly not for women, children, blacks or native, ushered in the 60's of civil change, ushered in the Great welfare state, socialism, crony capitalism. In the 60's liberals were the enemy, now conservatives are the enemy. You like to blame 'people' for screwing themselves, but I've been living for 50 years and truly have never had any idea how to change anything regarding The STATE, except become a non participant. Hope no jail time is involved.
People blame corporations because they feel it's an evil they CAN push to regulate within the current system. Tell them instead to end all government as we know it-a megaton task that sounds crazy, the very reason they (currently) say Ron Paul is unelectable. If they cant even see to RP they can't see living without gov. So on that note I really think you are disingenuous to always use a strawman like Starbucks to make your point. It rings so weak, Haliburton, Blackwater, Fannie/Freddy, JP, GS?
In fairness, the line between public and private/violent and nonviolent become muddled when so many ostensibly private businesses are dependent on government subsidies and regulations. You yourself have said that most corporations would not exist without limited liability laws. Can these thousands of privately-owned businesses really be called non-violent only survive through government policy?
there is a reason why they dont discuss MPE publically... theres a reason why you (the victim class) has been left in the dark the whole time, meanwhile we've had a provable solution to the WORLDS ECONOMIC problems, for half a century
look into MPE, and mike montagne(a REAL economist)
dont listen to the shit from the people exploiting you anymore...
just ask yourself, why is this guys been up my ass with nonsense foggy evasive double talk the entire conversation here?
no the reason people dont discuss MPE publicly is because its just more silly zietgiest crypto-commie bullcrap. I gave that stuff a chance, hes going on and on about usury never differentiating between voluntary and coerced debt. Yawwwwn been there heard it a million times.
Are you seriously suggesting that Alex Jones, Max Kieser and Peter Schiff know about MPE, know its correct, and dont want to tell us because we might not listen to them anymore?
@Equity213 soveriegn people, issuing their own promissory obligations, free of any government intervention and/or thieving banks, markets that regulate themselves, buying/selling to whoever they want for whatever price is contracted is communism? lol
youre very confused buds and im sorry to hear... can you explain how giving up your natural RIGHT to create money(a promissory obligation) to a bank (public or private), or even a government is a better option? id love to hear this :)
@Equity213 and im telling you schiff, keiser, jones(well maybe not jones) understand mpe, and no they cannot disprove it... its a 40 year mathematic proof of solution... those clowns would never take mike montagnes offer to discuss/disprove it, coz they cannot...
watch?v=gtwqUi5GexU @6:48 austrian bob murphy bails out of this interview LOL
anyone wishing to educate themself, on what REAL economy is and can only ever be, should research "mathematically perfected economy", and stay away from the complete bullshit pack of lies that present economic theory(?) crams into your propagandized heads
a 40+ year old SOLUTION, that politicians have known about and hidden from (like the decievers they are) for those 40 years
do you think guys like peter schiff, or alex jones, or max keiser, etc dont know or arent aware of MPE?
5) this and this alone, is economy, coz of this one natural and factual pattern of loan eliminates all extrensic or redundant costs, that we can perpetually sustain industry in which we require others production for no more than equal measures of our own as we decide.
and nothing but these inseperable objects will perpetually sustain redeemability and relative value in a circulation , which is without a need for regulation, by no more than this one justifiable natural pattern of payment will perpetually retain a 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining obligation, and remaining value of perpetually represented property, ensuring that the natural obligations are aslways enforcable in remaining value.
that paid principle is the rightful property of no one much less is it the propert of the mere intervening publishers of our promissory obligations to each other, who only claim to issue credit.
the principle must be paid at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property, for no other rate of payment, and no other conditions solve inflation and deflation and no other fact preserves the debtors right to pay for only what they consume, as they consume of it.
4) as the real creditor recieves full payment from the outset of every such arrangement, there is NO justifiable claim for interest to exist. these purposed obfuscations of the pretended economies which have been imposed upon the world deny every actual creditor interest. that only principle and the cost of enforcement (if any) therefore are rightly paid by debtors, and that all payments of principle must be retired from circulation for the fullfillment cancels the obligation from existence.
Here is free banking in a nutshell: Depositors freely choose to leave their monies in the care of a banker, in return for interest paid on their deposit. The banker, in turn, voluntarily (and with the full knowledge and consent of depositors) loan these monies to deserving parties, who, in turn promise to pay them back with interest.
If you would try to forcibly interpose yourself between any of these parties, you are no better than the fiat bankster slime that you propose to crush.
As for tribalism and antitrade, well, most modern Eco texts are apolitical for intro to microeconomics, using 10th grade Algebra to demonstrate that international trade makes everyone better off. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who really thinks that being an isolationist society would better than a trading society. I mean, really, the concept of comparative advantage isn't mysterious; and machinists are certainly capable of elementary economics and international trade.
You should be more clear on the term monopoly because there are at least 3 distinct types of monopoly that are covered in any Eco 101 course. You also failed to cover how a natural monopoly can be dealt with using no gov. intervention if the goal, of course, is to minimize deadweight loss. I suppose a pure Rights oriented person would have economic rights trump deadweight loss, but in a strictly economic sense, deadweight loss is to be avoided.
and the whole time were re-"borrowing" all the principle and all the interest that were paying to maintain a vital circulation so were able to continually service the initial debts, while we amass all this further debt... which is inevitably terminal.
@twk373 you are not defending "free banking", youre defending the lie that is the "economy"..,. theres no mystery why pretended "economists" will NEVER teach the few actual principles of monetization to the unwitting victim class.
the great lies advocates -->(you & decievers like you) are forever condemned to unqualifiable assertion and evasion, which even as a manner of establishing a purported fact itself ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS gives away the conscious promotion of wrong.
Two whole comments of frothy raving? ...seriously?
How long are you going to wail mindlessly about the alleged evils of free banking? Why exactly do you hate free banking so much? You seem to have much difficulty in explaining this. But fear not! I am endlessly patient. So try again.
-> 2) Yes, goofy, OBVIOUSLY the debtor is "ultimately" issuing the "promissory obligation." That's some fine rocket surgery you've got going on there.
@twk373 so now deciever, im going to clear up some of these lies, since you enjoy this game(?) and want to discuss things further... even tho these half-thought out arguments, lobbed my way from you (the deceiver), have been demolished so far, as anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear can (and will now if they did not before) plainly understand...
in other words, you are so full of shit it must fall out of your ears... and now i'll explain why...
@twk373 of course people are not taught these things... coz theyre the only truths:
1) TRUE ECONOMY will only be possible when the unwitting victim class finally rises above the pathological lies of banking, which is no more than purposed terminal exploitation.
2) whoever contracts to fulfill a debt is ultimately the issuer of their promissory obligation, for the obligation is theirs and would never even otherwise exist, but for their willfull comittment to fullfillment.
@twk373 3) the only actual creditors, give up the property which is aquired for these obligations with any risk of the integrity of the resultant currency eliminated only by enforcement of a just and universally enforcable contact.
but it is mathematically impossible to universally enforce falsified obligations to pay principle and interest out of a circulation which is forever comprised at most of only the some remaining principle, nor is interest justified to a pretended creditor... (cont)
-> 3) Yes, duh. I applaud your masterful capacity to state the obvious. Concordantly, the reason why free banking has in fact operated successfully throughout history is that... ...wait for it!...
...obligations to pay p+i are not simultaneously and universally enforced.
Instead, debtors pay back p+i piecemeal, over an extended period of time. (Could anything be more trivially obvious?) Then what is your problem, exactly?
@twk373 who no more than than publishes the evidence of our promissory obligations to each other falsely claining not only a groundless debt to a mere publisher of this evidence of a very different obligation which DOES NOT EVEN INVOLVE THE PUBLISHER but that risk justifies paying interest to this mere publisher, who obfuscates the original obligation into a falsified debt to itself, when actual cost, risk and possession of the publisher are no more than the negligable cost of publication.
You know, as a I continue reading your comments, I become increasingly impressed with your command of the English language--a command that has improved at a remarkable rate. What I am trying to say is that you can stop copy/pasting from whatever website or book you are copying/pasting from. Yawn.
Therefore, I am done reading your silly comments. I will leave you with the following simple, inoffensive explanation of free banking.
@twk373 but ok, a bank gives up a dime to issue 100,000 dollars into circulation so a guy can buy a 100,000 home, requiring him to pay another 100,000 or more in interest.
if we pay a principle of 100,000 (p) + the 100,000 of interest (i), now were paying 200,000 dollars (p+i) out of a circulation... comprised of no more than 100,000 dollars?
all at the cost of 10cents(!) to banks... just for publishing the evidence of our promissory obligations
I guess you weren't paying attention when I said, "Note that our fantasy currency system in which banks can counterfeit at will does not reflect upon the *principle* of banking"?
OBVIOUSLY, the fact that the federal government forces everyone to tolerate the hellish fractional reserve banking system is pure, unadulterated evil.
But I'm not defending that, friend. I'm defending *legitimate* free market banking. Get it? :-)
Say a depositor (me) loans out $100k worth of goods and services to a borrower (you). The borrower is then required to pay back $100k worth of goods/services plus $50k worth of goods/services in interest. $10k goes to the depositor, and $40k goes to pay the bank employees.
How does he pay off the $100k? By laboring to produce goods and services. How does he pay off the $50k? By laboring to produce goods and services. The medium of exchange is irrelevant.
You are so obsessed with the money that you forget what is ACTUALLY be lent is purchasing power; i.e., goods/services. And how do you create good/services? By working! Duh!
And in reality, the borrower doesn't even have the initial $100k anymore. He gave that to the home seller.
So how does it do it, in your trivial example? By selling his own goods and services to the home seller, to get some of the money back, which he then gives back to the depositor, who he can then work for.
@twk373 what you propose (and none too convincingly) is that we all just allow ourselves to be subject to this form of artificial indebtedness (even tho people create money, people create the value it represents) when there is NEVER once been ANY DEBT to the bank?
great idea man simply brilliant.
this conversations a giant waste of time coz youre obviously incapable of understanding whats been said so far, or too miseducated/brainwashed by present day economic thoughts to use common sense
Surely you mean that *you* are obviously incapable of understanding what's been said so far, and are too miseducated/brainwashed by present day economic though to use common sense?
Pay attention, goofy: *I* have no intention of being in debt. But I am more than happy to be paid for the privilege of having my money kept safe.
You keep going on about banks, but in REALITY, the borrower is indebted to the DEPOSITOR. Yeah, so evil. Uh-huh. Look, I'm just trying to help you. Get it?
@TheStig000 "And when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding usurers, advocates of usury, phony "economists", all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us."
all of us... were all to blame, in some way. some more than others... if youre asking, banks or government. i say banks... we all have no idea what kind of life has been taken from us, by banks/banking.
The only thing that's stolen our lives is the federal government, which created and sustains the diabolical Federal Reserve and its hellish web of fiat financial institutions.
Without the evils of the state imposing themselves on the banking system, banking would be the natural, wholesome, and honorable enterprise that it could and should be.
Teachers. public school teachers. are preying upon children? My dear Stefan what an absolute idiot you are! You have the gall, heck the delusion, to call what you do philosophy? You are a verbiose fool.
banks steal from all of us ffs... theyre good for nothing, unless theft is considered a virtue... and there will never ever be a true free market until all banks fuck right off and quit intervening between me and my neighbor, or you and your neighbor
@ott0Kitam Well the big banks were set to fail about a year ago until the government gave billions of our dollars to them to keep them afloat. So who's to blame now?
1)a bank just intervenes between two parties who want to do business.(obligor and creditor)
2)a bank falsifies a mans promissory obligation, which are really to another man-> (obligor to creditor), into a debt owed to themselves.
3)this misrepresentation of our promissory obligations by the bank causes much damage to an economy, coz the syphoning by banks of unearned wealth(interest) will cause circulatory deflation which leads to price inflation and a multiplication of debt
just think... how can a bank (which is a building), or govt(some manmade concept) create money?
it cant
people are misled by thinking moneys created as debt or made from thin air, or whatever else dumb shit people say...
people CREATE money, by their(the obligors) promissory obligations, by delivering something of value to the true creditor (the person owed the thing of value)
also what does any bank ever puts up (its own lawful consideration) in any purported loan it issues???
stef, i count myself as a supporter of your views, but as someone who lived through the '70's in britian and still lives there :
a) margret thatcher is not a good comparison to Ron Paul;
b) the top people in commerce (the 1 %) that are robbing everybody , i'm just guessing of course, did NOT attend PUBLIC SCHOOL. those types went to eton, etc., PRIVATE SCHOOL. the old boys network.
Isn't that True News theme a rip-off of the Rex Murphy call-in show on CBC, Sundays? I have to compose a new theme one of these here days and send it in to Stef . . .
"That which eliminates labor adds value to the economy." Well certainly not an absolutely true statement. Any "value" added is offset by some decrease in wages and thus spending. What I see today is people adding value to the Chinese economy and decreasing local. Those farm workers in a rural county are not going to work at a pesticide plant in Europe. So the locals lose. My air is polluted and fish don't live in my creek anymore, polluters profit while the rest suffer. It won't sustain.
stefbot,,,,,given you believe so many of us, the great unschooled, are complete ignoramuses....who do you think is actually going to give a hoot about what you say. Much of which is so true...and is clearly a great ride for you.....but as you say we are heading off the cliff and so what do you do when you are heading off a cliff and you see a strawberry. If you are me you reach out and eat the juicy little berry. Gosh do you taste good. more power to your elbow.
I don't agree with everything Stef says, but I think it's because he has a much more positive outlook of how we could all live together without some sort of organization that will use force to apprehend and punish those that harm others. You think I'm going to pay to lock up some guy that raped a member of my community. No. We'd kill him. Not for revenge, but to protect others by stopping him. Stef is preaching the Word, but he doesn't realize it. He loves u.
@JizzonTheDark Thanks for that. But being a woman, being old, being my own person I realise there will always be someone or groups of someones who will want to control or protect one. Call them governments,tribes, communities, banks, organisations,, priests, teachers, parents, husbands, lovers, etc. For me life is a wheel which keeps turning. Everything repeats. Havent you noticed war and violence is so prevalent. Until we can live in peace there will be no change.
we had a "permanent underclass" in the fifties...we just didnt see it because we didnt have too much tv. We had a permanent underclass in the sixties, seventies, eighties etc....
Unless children are taught to be "creative" they will be naturally "creative". Which could mean they will decide to rob, steal, mug, wreck stuff, self harm get depressed and mentally leave the situation. We need to CARE. Unless the individual sorts out him or herself how can we proceed to help the children.
Stef may be right, but refusing to be REASONABLE to people who were PROMISED a pension later instead of a good pay while working compared to the private sector is TYRANNICAL. It is the fault of politicians, not workers; they should be held accountable and stripped of assets before workers or taxpayers. There is a JUST way of treating the very low paid who calculated that a pension would make up for their low wage. Cuts should be applied according to pay, so that the poorest are not ruined.
If you are going to challenge a point I make, read my other posts too or your post will be out of context and non-applicable. Also, learn to use the *Reply* button, that way I know you have replied. Typing '@' before my pseudonym does not notify me.
Stefan makes a series of valid points and, as he often says, they are self-evident. If there were a No Shit Sherlock Award, he would be a choice candidate.
"Anti Market Bias" And then blah blah blah, being poor is natural.
Convoluted self-rationalizations and declarations of property rights, nothing more. It's actually more violent sounding cumulatively than any State coercive act and interestingly enough that Ayn Randish spiel indirectly fuels the problems of so called government you whine about so much.
The gateway drug is $ and I find you "Free" Market Economists to be somewhere between a drug addict and a denial programmed Creationist.
@MattSyTy As far as I'm aware of Rand was a minarchist of sorts and pro-free market, the problems of the state are due to the state abandoning the free market than anything else.
@crazypants88 The point I was trying to make is that the State and the "Free" Market are one in the same. They exist in a cohabitave finger pointing game with one another in suppression of environmental and social stability. One mutates into imposed subliminal advertising, the other turns into a Dystopian police state.
Private Property = Police, which also = Laws being made, which also = government. Everything you see today happened by design and now we're heading into uncharted territory.
@MattSyTy Right and that point is wrong, a free market is defined more or less by the absence of government interference. A free market is where there is little to no government interference in the economy.
Imposed advertising? Yes cause the effort to change the channel/not reading an ad etc etc can be too much.
Yes I agree, property needs to protected, where you stumble is in your assumption that that protection has to be from the state, which is not true.
@MattSy How would you make stupid youtube comments if you didn't have the right to own the means to make them, i.e. a computer?
Corporate anarchism? Corporations are a result of state interference in the economy, it's a business that gets special treatment due to the state.
Yes because not watching TV is such a human rights violation, christ this is getting absurd. It's not an imposition on you, is it an imposition on you if you see an ugly person? By your criteria it would be
@MattSyTy Your "point" is nonsense, of course and is based on little more than assertion. All forms of property require protection, be they in person, "personal" items or other forms of private or "public" property. It only implies a state if you cannot think outside very limited parameters, in fact primitive ones.
@Moragauth I really enjoy the "nonsense" dismissal. It clearly defines the gullibility and naivety of the common Anarchist/Voluntarist/Libertarian...whatever the fuck you are. The fallacy that their couldn't or shouldn't be a state or authority to protect property rights is beyond repugnant stupidity.
I do agree with you that private property is primitive. It's actually such a primitive mental perspective that it enslaves human society to such a degree that a State becomes inevitable.
@MattSyTy *shrug* don't care. I'll continue dismissing it as nonsense. Also, I like how you snuck in "or authority" to cover yourself. Not all authorities are states.
And I spoke of your inability to imagine anything but a state protecting property rights of any kind, including those commies enshrine. The rest is emotive regurgitation bereft of any reasoning, so... enjoy the same dismissal with respect to it. -
@Moragauth - After all, most "commie" examples of societies are themselves primitive tribes, hence why many anarcho-communists eventually become anarcho-primitivists. So spare me the drivel.
@Moragauth - After all, most "commie" examples of societies are themselves primitive tribes, hence why many anarcho-communists eventually become anarcho-primitivists. So spare me the drivel.
Actually, sorry, I shouldn't use the word "borrower", since the banks "borrow" nothing to people, instead use their own promissory obligation as a credit... The proper term would be "obligor".
To say "borrower", is very deceptive and misleading
@twk373 legitimate free market banking? i highly doubt you follow what i said previously, or you would see how little sense that statement makes.
what is legitimate free market banking? and how is money created? do you think private banks or governments create money? or do people create money? and how is interest put into circulation, when i man loans 10000 dollars, yet has to pay back 15000?
Legitimate free market banking: when a businessman provides a service where he pays individuals for the privilege of storing their money, which he uses to make low-risk loans to other individuals.
Money isn't "created." Anything that can be "created" arbitrarily (c.f., paper) is, by definition, NOT money. Whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable, and non-arbitrary pace.
So neither banks nor governments nor people "create" money.
@twk373 says, "Money isn't created. Anything that can be 'created' arbitrarily (paper) is NOT money, whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable and non-arbitrary pace. So neither banks nor governments nor people create money."
twk373, your statement that I have quoted above shows that you don't know anything about "Fractional Reserve Lending" which started at 10% and is now less than 1% backed by gold, so Banks do CREATE money as debt
@twk373 "Money isn't "created" (your words)... youre completely wrong, obviously money (at some point) IS created
"Whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable, and non-arbitrary pace." (your words)
again, youre completely wrong.. precious metals, fiat (or anything thats used as money), is simply a secondary representation of each of our own promissory obligations to each other... which is what holds the real value and is how WE create money
Obviously, yes, we create goods and services, and, yes, they are the basis of all promissory obligations.
However, goods and services are not money. There have been times in history were money did not exist, but goods and services certainly did. We call that "barter." Money is simply the medium of exchange for goods and services.
The entire point of money is that its quantity is fixed, so it can't be created arbitrarily (i.e., counterfeited). If it can be printed, it's not money.
What people and banks (but not governments!) create are *goods* and *services*. NOT money; money is simply the medium of exchange for those goods and services.
I think you mean, "when a man *is* loaned $10,000, but has to pay back $15,000."
OBVIOUSLY, interest can't be (and therefore isn't) put into circulation. You are making the error of thinking in terms of money when you should be thinking in terms of goods and services.
Here's how loans work. What is actually happening is that a group of individuals are providing their own *saved* goods and services to another individual so that individual can consume those goods and services in the present.
Typically this "consumption" takes the form of 1) building capital equipment (which boosts productivity), or 2) building a house.
In return, the consuming individual promises to pay back the original goods and services, plus extra.
@twk373 youre completely wrong (again) about "how loans work"... but this is coz you dont seem to understand or see how we the people create money and not banks or govts, nor do you seem to understand what any money represents.
money is created (conception) when you or i sign a promissory obligation, which is a promise to deliver something of value(at a future time)
people create money, (or the thing of real value), from their promise to deliver something to someone
Keep your made up definitions to yourself. Money: Definition: "A medium of exchange for goods and services, in the form of coins."
And you are exactly wrong. Promises do not "create" anything. I promise to build you a starship. Tell me, what has my promise created? In fact, what we create are goods and services, and we create those though capital and labor.
Anyway, you are ignoring the last 7,000+ years of history: you can only use "promises" as currency if you trust people, but people are notoriously untrustworthy.
That is why the ancients wisely developed the use of precious metals as money, because precious metals have intrinsic value. Thus people are more than willing to accept coins in lieu of actual goods/services, because everyone values coin.
And after 7 millennia of proof, we can safely say that money = precious metals.
So how does he (the present-day consumer) pay back the "extra" (i.e., interest) to the savers? Or, for that matter, the principle? Why, simply with his own his own goods and services, which he CREATES out of his own labor!
And the exchange takes place through the medium of a bank, because the saving individuals are willing to pay the banker some of the "extra" for his capital (secure vault) and his expertise in determining which individuals are sufficiently worthy of a loan.
@twk373 here, youre saying that people create money... yet several comments back, you said people dont... so, which is it?
you misunderstand the nature of money, the only thing of value is our promissory obligation, a persons promise deliver something of value...
banks dont create money... banks expand existing moneys that we the people create... but again, this is simply an obfuscation/mis-representation of our original promissory obligation
No, people create goods and services. NOT money. People have not directly traded in goods and services (barter) for thousands of years, so to call goods and services "money" completely overlooks the purpose of money, not to mention its actual definition. The purpose of money (gold/silver) is simply to serve as a medium of exchange for goods and services, and the point of money is that it can't be created arbitrarily (counterfeiting).
I'm sorry, but your "promise" does not actually have any value. Can you eat a promise? Can a promise keep you warm, or surf the web? Hardly.
The only things with value are goods and services. (And the reason why money has value is because it is a type of good.)
But let's address this subject of "promises." Promises only enter when you are talking about loans: that is, when I give you something without getting anything in return except for your promise to pay me back with interest.
But an economy would still work perfectly well even if there were no loans (promises), and you would still use money (coin) to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
So saying that "promises" are the bedrock of everything is nonsense.
Of course banks don't create money. I already said that. But banks do provide a valuable service: namely, they protect your money (coin) from theft, and they provide you with a return on your money. And this is evil...why?
I do find it endlessly amusing how the "interest is evil" nuts place the blame on banks, when the blame really falls on the depositors who entrust their money to the banks in exchange for a return. Yes, of course, a portion of the interest goes to the bank to fund its operation and pay its employees, but the rest goes to the depositor: i.e., the average Joe.
Note that our fantasy currency system in which banks can counterfeit at will does not reflect upon the *principle* of banking.
You don't want a bank? Fine. In 19th century America, no one would have forced you to use the services of a bank. Ultimately Ron Paul will return us to that situation.
But the rest of us, including myself, desire the services of a business which will pay us for the privilege of keeping our money safe. Yes, read that again. It's a win-win.
Sorry, but the reality is that banking is the second greatest economic invention of all time. It stimulates capital production, spurring growth.
So, yes, banking is a perfectly legitimate and honorable enterprise. You're just confused because you're drawing naive conclusions based on an (incorrect) assessment of how money is exchanged in the loan process.
But when you think of banking in terms of goods and services, which are of course the things that are *actually* being loaned, it is easy to see that banking is perfectly normal and there is nothing spurious going on.
@needparalegal stefs a great guy man and very sharp, but he's just confused, like so many, by this idea of the free market(as "austrians" see it)
There will never be a true free market, until we all stop allowing banks to issue our promissory obligations... Until we stop allowing banks to turn our promissory obligations(to each other-from borrower to true creditor), into a debt to themselves(bankers)... Stef doesn't see this distortion banks do as detrimental to the entire economy
You have it exactly backwards. The problem is not that certain individuals are "allowed" to voluntarily safeguard others' money, loan it out, and issue "notes."
The problem is that we are *coerced* into using one particular bank note.
If there were no legal tender laws (as it should be), competing currencies would freely fluctuate according to their real value, and none of the problems that you incorrectly claim are systemic to the activity of "banking" would exist.
@willrod1025 Not really. There is plenty of oil. But most of the world's oil is not anywhere near as cheaply accessible as the oil we've been burning up to now and much of 'that' is in fact running out. We will find new sources and new technologies will arise making expensive sources more economical. But that and rising demand almost certainly will lead to significant rises in oil prices as time goes on. This 'will' make some alternatives more price competitive however.
This guy really is not as bright as he thinks he is. He thinks the "free market" can fix environmental problems? He is right that it could solve labor safety problems if laws were just (ie, no "Tort Reforms").
Fortunately, there are no "environmental" problems. Perhaps, in the grim darkness of the far future, humanity will be beset by externalities so terrible that only a central planning agency could save us.
Barring that, so-called "environmental" problems are really only property rights problems, and they can be easily solved by abolishing public property.
@twk373 You can't possibly be as stupid as you seem. You think toxins like mercury and fluoride are not a "problem". Well, they are not a problem if you are a rock or a cockroach, but for humans they create a few problems. In December 1952 12,000 people died from the Smog in London. How the fuck do you think your "private property" is protected from Plutonium 237 coming out of Fukushima and drifting east on the winds?
@needparalegal You're the stupid one here. Whether they are a "problem" or not depends on a host of factors. I'm not sure what your point regarding Plutonium is or if you even understand what you're arguing against based on it. Perhaps very little indeed.
Margaret Thatcher is nothing like Ron Paul. She was a warmongering, nuclear fuel polluting, arrogant corporatist. Many experts believe much of todays problems started with Maggie Thatcher.
You can't have a country without taxes fools. In Britain, get rid of the police, the BBC TV and radio, the libraries, the schools, the military, the firemen, the nurses, the doctors, the courts, the roads, the rails, etc etc. You libertarians and right wingers are fools. You will pay for these things.
@ManNorthern You can. Please, please get rid of the BBC before everything else. You're the fool if you think it is amongst things that are needed. I bet the stuff you say about Thatcher is made up assertions too for the most part. Leftists tend to vilify her whilst hero worshipping their own idols.
@Moragauth No police, no roads, no military, no railways, nothing. You will be the first one complaining about it. You are a complete dinosaur. Your world is history.
@ManNorthern Try arguing against actual positions held by anarchists rather than strawmen of your own fabrication. It is your debt-based world that is collapsing around you. I watch with glee as you pension-seeking, tax-mongering whores watch your "entitlements" stripped from you.
Not just in England Stefan but Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland ! and did I hear you say Margaret MACTHATCHER ? or are you taking the piss? Because we Scots loved Thatcher !!!!...NOT and by the way the strikes in 70's were and are alot different from the strike that happened yesterday and for different reasons.
Interesting, so it's regulations that push jobs overseas? Well lets build a nuclear power plant in your back yard. And can we use your trash can to dispose of bio-hazardous materials? And you won't mind the noise and damage from us fracking in your neighbors yard, will you? Other desperate countries that may whore themselves for the short term $ gains, are nowhere I care to raise my family. 'Your' anarchy seems ok for sticks and stones application, but we are in a more complex enviroment today.
@wyknot100 It's regulations, yes. The rest is baseless whining and histrionics. Your response is just the sort of hubristic, whimpering idiocy Stefbot speaks of. What a load of old shit. "COmplex" enviroonment. Huh. So how is an institution like the state that is anachronistic in the extreme going to deal with this? Wishing away reality? You seem to find YT quite fine for dumping your ill formed/uninformed opinions and are strawmanning.
@Moragauth Boo hoo! You don't like my opinions and I don't care for all of Stef's or yours. Now who's the whimpering idiot, or are you just Stef's bootlicking YT comment police? What is, is, now live with it or change it. But don't expect everyone to follow you. Some of us have our own ideas, ill formed/uninformed as you may believe them to be. Thanks for answering my questions, keep up the good work.
@wyknot100 You remain the whimpering idiot. I've no obligation to live with it. You bear the obligation to justify your nonsense to others since you advocate the imposition of initiative force against others against their better wishes.
@Moragauth Wow obligation, advocate, imposition, and initiative force? Who knew free speach would be so offensive to a supposed anarchist? Lmao, you my good friend ARE the justification. I was just being a spotlight. Thank you so much.
@stefbot - Stef, I have a question for you about the way in which you communicate with your audience. You are a self proclaimed Anarchist and I assume this means that you reject currency and capitalism, but without this surely you would not be able to communicate with your audience via the internet, nor support this project... Is it hypocritical for anarchists to use outlets that are essentially the product of capitalism?
You are operating under a wrong assumption. There are variety of anarchists, from anarcho-communists to anarcho-capitalists. Stef is, unless I am mistaken, an anarcho-capitalist; or free market anarchist, or voluntaryist, whatever you want to call it. While anarcho-communists reject capitalism, anarcho-capitalists do not. In fact they support capitalism, true capitalism; not the semifascist-communist-socialism we have now...
...Id like to hear what you have to say about public sector workers who are doing work in high demand and whose services would be required in the private sector: nurses, doctors, paramedics, firemen, garbage men...not everyone is just digging a hole and refilling it...should these people hope for the collapse of the government and a better life in the private sector, or negotiate with their employers who are screwing them by hiring all the managers, box tickers etc
OMG the evil government! Tell me, why do governments change every couple of years, corporation owners not? Why are the corporation owners the richest, not the politics? I agree on many points with you but the corporations are THE problem, or if we go another step back, GREED IS THE PROBLEM.
@Anonymous247n OMG!! From wikipedia: "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members." Greed is OK, theft is bad.
@fleskebille Well, if there were no state, do you think there would be no corporations either? No, they just wouldn't be regulated. And greed EQUALS theft in most cases because people just don't know to control it, so they do what's wrong, and it's real easy to break moral laws, that's why the state is here to enforce laws.
I don't know, i may have it wrong, but i still see immoral greed as the root problem.
@Anonymous247n I think companies would be regulated by the market, actually being responsible for their actions now that the state is not there to exempt itself and its cronies from responsibility. The state is the antithesis to responsibility. Greed can be a good thing, really (like pushing up prices is "good" when resources are dwindling). If you mean theft, say so. The state is built on bads like theft and is supposed to do good with the loot.
2. Believing that the state will be less infected by "greedy", "selfish", "immoral", whatever, people than corporations is just silly. I do not consider things like: "bad" work environment, "low" pay, "high" prices, and such, to be punishable in any way. However, when you are selling a product, you have a certain responsibility to inform the buyer, and the buyer has a responsibility to question (things like third party certification, rating agencies and internet reviews/comments are helpful).
@fleskebille Think about it, those with money and power have the ability to control public opinion, they can control the market through monopolies, and if there will be no government they'll actually be able to "buy" their own police too... Don't take me wrong, the state does many wrong things, but at least it's responsible to people - corporations ARE NOT. And the bigger they get, the stronger they are, and it'll get impossible to limit their influence. BTW state=corporation nowadays.
@Anonymous247n 1. "They" will not control public opinion. People choose what to believe, and "they" are not their cult leaders, unlike heads of state. They can buy some protection/police, but too much “police” will damage their competitiveness. The government has proven again and again that they are not responsible, because people are not holding them responsible, so they can do quite a lot of torturing, killing and putting innocent people in jail etc. It’s you who need to think about this.
@Anonymous247n 2. The state actually steals from people and makes monopoly money. A free market company just isn’t comparable. And whether someone gets away with tyrannical behavior will depend on people’s beliefs. I think it's unrealistic to expect that a private company could ever get this power, and if so, then you'd just have a state again, and at least an attempt to get away from the rotten system has been made.
@fleskebille About public opinion - do you see much government advertisements? No, but coke and McD ads everywhere, don't you think it influences people? Sure, people can choose, but not really, what about the children who may not be able to oppose unhealthy food for example if it's being pushed into their minds all the time? And you guessed very well, companies would get much stronger than the states of today if unregulated, and we'd just have a new form of "statism". Just without elections.
@Anonymous247n "people can choose, but not really". You're just making unfounded assumptions. Don't know about you but commercials never had that strong an effect on me. State representatives don't need to buy commercials directly, they control/subsidize/influence/own media and they have the guns/legitimacy that make people listen, and so have a strong presence in the old media, oh and they "educate" the children... "companies would get much stronger than the states of today". Not likely.
@Anonymous247n "people can choose, but not really". You're just making unfounded assumptions. Don't know about you but commercials never had that strong an effect on me. State representatives don't need to buy commercials directly, they control/influence/own media and they have the guns/legitimacy that make people listen, and so have a strong presence in the old media, oh and they "educate" the children... "companies would get much stronger than the states of today". Not likely.
@fleskebille Commercials don't influence me either, so why are they there i wonder... look, media are owned by those who pay the most. Now again, how many commercials do you see for, say, obama? I rest my case. I would appreciate it though if you explained to me what's the problem with government education. I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT so i admit i'm being ignorant about this one.. maybe point me to a video here on youtube? I would really like to know what the "evil behind education" is.
@Anonymous247n "I would appreciate it though if you explained to me what's the problem with government education."
One-size-fits-all, outdated educational techniques coercively financed through the money of others, perhaps? Oh and commercials definitely influence. That is their point. However, it requires a much stronger argument to show they can mindwash.
@Moragauth Hm, good point, the one-size-fits-all is problematic but i think it would require far more resources... AHA, that's your point! ;) Well there is some knowledge that sould be considered "common" though so i think all students should learn the basics of most subjects. You know, to make them competent in understanding the world. Outdated educational techniques... hmm, maybe, but there are new teachers every year... OK, i'll try to look into this deeper.
@Anonymous247n 1. Commercials are there to get attention of course. I didn’t say it had no influence on me, just not very much.
The problem with state education is, as Moragauth said, a one size fits all, everybody must pay even if the don’t use it (but they are compelled), top down, authoritarian/militarized system with state curriculum of course. It’s insane that the rulers in a democracy can decide what and how kids should learn. It takes away the natural desire for learning for many too.
you misunderstand the purpose of democracy... the purpose of democracy is for the majority to jack the minority...
however there is a flaw in representative democracy, your representatives are easily bought (and the masses are stupid), and so a rich shrewd minority instead jacks you.
democracy dies when the majority decides they are getting outplayed, and want a strong man to take care of them.
good = whatever is good for me and others like me
the function of philosophy is to cloud the mind.
jordan567890 2 months ago
@jordan567890 Why do you think democracy in itself is a good institution? Its the tyranny of the majority. Its two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Salford999Red 2 months ago
WOW MAN THOSE FUCKING MONSTER TEACHERS, GREEDY BASTARDS. THINK THEY CAN'T STARVE ONCE THEY RETIRE...
TheEthanwashere 3 months ago
so does he go all anti-union and crap?... bourgeois
TheEthanwashere 3 months ago
it's hard to explain the truth succinctly
IllichSketchShow 3 months ago
Hey I broadly agree with what you say but a lot of the time when you talk about sate monopolies you almost ubiquitously fail to mention why people say they ssupport these things
education is a prime example
when you talk about how deregulating the education system would allow the most effective methods to prevail people tend to say this is far too open to abuse and some body has to be the watchdog
you and I know the present system is abusive but engaging with these central arguments is key
IllichSketchShow 3 months ago
they're not really getting a great deal compared to private sector
when you say "we can see how much they needed" you're being a cold motherfucker
we are talking mostly people who have dedicated their lives to children believeing they were doing the right thing, they did their degrees in teaching (which they are legally bound to do) and then went into teaching and worked really hard, sure the education is corrupt but most people go in with good intentions
IllichSketchShow 3 months ago
you supported Margaret Thatcher???? what????
she is blatantly all ego trip, no warmth for anyone in her black little heart
IllichSketchShow 3 months ago
It is natural for the strong to bullly the weak, yet you rail against it Stef. Yet you want others to accept this, when it comes to situations you have no experiance or care about. nice hypocracy. Other than that, good video
genghisdon1 3 months ago
@genghisdon1: I'd love to see some support for that other than to just say that it's natural for group X of humans to do Y.
andyissemicool 3 months ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
Of course Stefan you are not getting free money are you? or are you with your plea for donations from your sheeple. So the reason you are a philosopher is to to help raise the costs of evil? The words I here most from all your videos regardless the topic are evil, children, society, force, and the greatness of yourself. Who would calculate the hours that one does via education ? You do, NPD is what you may have. you should seek help from an independant professional. What i hear is ur childhood.
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
I guess the past was great, for some, certainly not for women, children, blacks or native, ushered in the 60's of civil change, ushered in the Great welfare state, socialism, crony capitalism. In the 60's liberals were the enemy, now conservatives are the enemy. You like to blame 'people' for screwing themselves, but I've been living for 50 years and truly have never had any idea how to change anything regarding The STATE, except become a non participant. Hope no jail time is involved.
SonjaSmith 3 months ago
People blame corporations because they feel it's an evil they CAN push to regulate within the current system. Tell them instead to end all government as we know it-a megaton task that sounds crazy, the very reason they (currently) say Ron Paul is unelectable. If they cant even see to RP they can't see living without gov. So on that note I really think you are disingenuous to always use a strawman like Starbucks to make your point. It rings so weak, Haliburton, Blackwater, Fannie/Freddy, JP, GS?
SonjaSmith 3 months ago
In fairness, the line between public and private/violent and nonviolent become muddled when so many ostensibly private businesses are dependent on government subsidies and regulations. You yourself have said that most corporations would not exist without limited liability laws. Can these thousands of privately-owned businesses really be called non-violent only survive through government policy?
QuatFax 3 months ago
why is this idiot defending banking when its pointed out point by point just how bad youre all getting screwed???
why is someone attacking this solution, in hopes of preserving the image of an institution thats clearly been exploitning us all for centuries??
the economic hardships in the world are only worsening... and people with solutions get attacked???
open your eyes to the great deception.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
there is a reason why they dont discuss MPE publically... theres a reason why you (the victim class) has been left in the dark the whole time, meanwhile we've had a provable solution to the WORLDS ECONOMIC problems, for half a century
look into MPE, and mike montagne(a REAL economist)
dont listen to the shit from the people exploiting you anymore...
just ask yourself, why is this guys been up my ass with nonsense foggy evasive double talk the entire conversation here?
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
no the reason people dont discuss MPE publicly is because its just more silly zietgiest crypto-commie bullcrap. I gave that stuff a chance, hes going on and on about usury never differentiating between voluntary and coerced debt. Yawwwwn been there heard it a million times.
Are you seriously suggesting that Alex Jones, Max Kieser and Peter Schiff know about MPE, know its correct, and dont want to tell us because we might not listen to them anymore?
Thats craaaazy bro.
Equity213 3 months ago
@Equity213 soveriegn people, issuing their own promissory obligations, free of any government intervention and/or thieving banks, markets that regulate themselves, buying/selling to whoever they want for whatever price is contracted is communism? lol
youre very confused buds and im sorry to hear... can you explain how giving up your natural RIGHT to create money(a promissory obligation) to a bank (public or private), or even a government is a better option? id love to hear this :)
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@Equity213 and im telling you schiff, keiser, jones(well maybe not jones) understand mpe, and no they cannot disprove it... its a 40 year mathematic proof of solution... those clowns would never take mike montagnes offer to discuss/disprove it, coz they cannot...
watch?v=gtwqUi5GexU @6:48 austrian bob murphy bails out of this interview LOL
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
anyone wishing to educate themself, on what REAL economy is and can only ever be, should research "mathematically perfected economy", and stay away from the complete bullshit pack of lies that present economic theory(?) crams into your propagandized heads
a 40+ year old SOLUTION, that politicians have known about and hidden from (like the decievers they are) for those 40 years
do you think guys like peter schiff, or alex jones, or max keiser, etc dont know or arent aware of MPE?
wake up
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
5) this and this alone, is economy, coz of this one natural and factual pattern of loan eliminates all extrensic or redundant costs, that we can perpetually sustain industry in which we require others production for no more than equal measures of our own as we decide.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
and nothing but these inseperable objects will perpetually sustain redeemability and relative value in a circulation , which is without a need for regulation, by no more than this one justifiable natural pattern of payment will perpetually retain a 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation, remaining obligation, and remaining value of perpetually represented property, ensuring that the natural obligations are aslways enforcable in remaining value.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
that paid principle is the rightful property of no one much less is it the propert of the mere intervening publishers of our promissory obligations to each other, who only claim to issue credit.
the principle must be paid at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property, for no other rate of payment, and no other conditions solve inflation and deflation and no other fact preserves the debtors right to pay for only what they consume, as they consume of it.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
4) as the real creditor recieves full payment from the outset of every such arrangement, there is NO justifiable claim for interest to exist. these purposed obfuscations of the pretended economies which have been imposed upon the world deny every actual creditor interest. that only principle and the cost of enforcement (if any) therefore are rightly paid by debtors, and that all payments of principle must be retired from circulation for the fullfillment cancels the obligation from existence.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Here is free banking in a nutshell: Depositors freely choose to leave their monies in the care of a banker, in return for interest paid on their deposit. The banker, in turn, voluntarily (and with the full knowledge and consent of depositors) loan these monies to deserving parties, who, in turn promise to pay them back with interest.
If you would try to forcibly interpose yourself between any of these parties, you are no better than the fiat bankster slime that you propose to crush.
twk373 3 months ago
As for tribalism and antitrade, well, most modern Eco texts are apolitical for intro to microeconomics, using 10th grade Algebra to demonstrate that international trade makes everyone better off. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who really thinks that being an isolationist society would better than a trading society. I mean, really, the concept of comparative advantage isn't mysterious; and machinists are certainly capable of elementary economics and international trade.
SuperKugel 3 months ago
You should be more clear on the term monopoly because there are at least 3 distinct types of monopoly that are covered in any Eco 101 course. You also failed to cover how a natural monopoly can be dealt with using no gov. intervention if the goal, of course, is to minimize deadweight loss. I suppose a pure Rights oriented person would have economic rights trump deadweight loss, but in a strictly economic sense, deadweight loss is to be avoided.
SuperKugel 3 months ago
and the whole time were re-"borrowing" all the principle and all the interest that were paying to maintain a vital circulation so were able to continually service the initial debts, while we amass all this further debt... which is inevitably terminal.
mate, you must be smoking rocks
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Again, stop pretending I'm defending the vile fractional reserve/Federal Reserve system.
I'm defending free banking. Get it yet?
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 you are not defending "free banking", youre defending the lie that is the "economy"..,. theres no mystery why pretended "economists" will NEVER teach the few actual principles of monetization to the unwitting victim class.
the great lies advocates -->(you & decievers like you) are forever condemned to unqualifiable assertion and evasion, which even as a manner of establishing a purported fact itself ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS gives away the conscious promotion of wrong.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Two whole comments of frothy raving? ...seriously?
How long are you going to wail mindlessly about the alleged evils of free banking? Why exactly do you hate free banking so much? You seem to have much difficulty in explaining this. But fear not! I am endlessly patient. So try again.
-> 2) Yes, goofy, OBVIOUSLY the debtor is "ultimately" issuing the "promissory obligation." That's some fine rocket surgery you've got going on there.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 so now deciever, im going to clear up some of these lies, since you enjoy this game(?) and want to discuss things further... even tho these half-thought out arguments, lobbed my way from you (the deceiver), have been demolished so far, as anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear can (and will now if they did not before) plainly understand...
in other words, you are so full of shit it must fall out of your ears... and now i'll explain why...
ok goofy ;)
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@twk373 of course people are not taught these things... coz theyre the only truths:
1) TRUE ECONOMY will only be possible when the unwitting victim class finally rises above the pathological lies of banking, which is no more than purposed terminal exploitation.
2) whoever contracts to fulfill a debt is ultimately the issuer of their promissory obligation, for the obligation is theirs and would never even otherwise exist, but for their willfull comittment to fullfillment.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@twk373 3) the only actual creditors, give up the property which is aquired for these obligations with any risk of the integrity of the resultant currency eliminated only by enforcement of a just and universally enforcable contact.
but it is mathematically impossible to universally enforce falsified obligations to pay principle and interest out of a circulation which is forever comprised at most of only the some remaining principle, nor is interest justified to a pretended creditor... (cont)
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
-> 3) Yes, duh. I applaud your masterful capacity to state the obvious. Concordantly, the reason why free banking has in fact operated successfully throughout history is that... ...wait for it!...
...obligations to pay p+i are not simultaneously and universally enforced.
Instead, debtors pay back p+i piecemeal, over an extended period of time. (Could anything be more trivially obvious?) Then what is your problem, exactly?
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 who no more than than publishes the evidence of our promissory obligations to each other falsely claining not only a groundless debt to a mere publisher of this evidence of a very different obligation which DOES NOT EVEN INVOLVE THE PUBLISHER but that risk justifies paying interest to this mere publisher, who obfuscates the original obligation into a falsified debt to itself, when actual cost, risk and possession of the publisher are no more than the negligable cost of publication.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
You know, as a I continue reading your comments, I become increasingly impressed with your command of the English language--a command that has improved at a remarkable rate. What I am trying to say is that you can stop copy/pasting from whatever website or book you are copying/pasting from. Yawn.
Therefore, I am done reading your silly comments. I will leave you with the following simple, inoffensive explanation of free banking.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 but ok, a bank gives up a dime to issue 100,000 dollars into circulation so a guy can buy a 100,000 home, requiring him to pay another 100,000 or more in interest.
if we pay a principle of 100,000 (p) + the 100,000 of interest (i), now were paying 200,000 dollars (p+i) out of a circulation... comprised of no more than 100,000 dollars?
all at the cost of 10cents(!) to banks... just for publishing the evidence of our promissory obligations
what an absolutely genius system here
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
I guess you weren't paying attention when I said, "Note that our fantasy currency system in which banks can counterfeit at will does not reflect upon the *principle* of banking"?
OBVIOUSLY, the fact that the federal government forces everyone to tolerate the hellish fractional reserve banking system is pure, unadulterated evil.
But I'm not defending that, friend. I'm defending *legitimate* free market banking. Get it? :-)
Or do you hate voluntary markets, too?
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
As for your math "problem":
Say a depositor (me) loans out $100k worth of goods and services to a borrower (you). The borrower is then required to pay back $100k worth of goods/services plus $50k worth of goods/services in interest. $10k goes to the depositor, and $40k goes to pay the bank employees.
How does he pay off the $100k? By laboring to produce goods and services. How does he pay off the $50k? By laboring to produce goods and services. The medium of exchange is irrelevant.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
You are so obsessed with the money that you forget what is ACTUALLY be lent is purchasing power; i.e., goods/services. And how do you create good/services? By working! Duh!
And in reality, the borrower doesn't even have the initial $100k anymore. He gave that to the home seller.
So how does it do it, in your trivial example? By selling his own goods and services to the home seller, to get some of the money back, which he then gives back to the depositor, who he can then work for.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 what you propose (and none too convincingly) is that we all just allow ourselves to be subject to this form of artificial indebtedness (even tho people create money, people create the value it represents) when there is NEVER once been ANY DEBT to the bank?
great idea man simply brilliant.
this conversations a giant waste of time coz youre obviously incapable of understanding whats been said so far, or too miseducated/brainwashed by present day economic thoughts to use common sense
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Surely you mean that *you* are obviously incapable of understanding what's been said so far, and are too miseducated/brainwashed by present day economic though to use common sense?
Pay attention, goofy: *I* have no intention of being in debt. But I am more than happy to be paid for the privilege of having my money kept safe.
You keep going on about banks, but in REALITY, the borrower is indebted to the DEPOSITOR. Yeah, so evil. Uh-huh. Look, I'm just trying to help you. Get it?
twk373 3 months ago
@TheStig000 "And when that day comes, under every rock you will find hiding usurers, advocates of usury, phony "economists", all the seekers of unearned profit who knew not even how to limit their great crime against us."
all of us... were all to blame, in some way. some more than others... if youre asking, banks or government. i say banks... we all have no idea what kind of life has been taken from us, by banks/banking.
stolen.
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
The only thing that's stolen our lives is the federal government, which created and sustains the diabolical Federal Reserve and its hellish web of fiat financial institutions.
Without the evils of the state imposing themselves on the banking system, banking would be the natural, wholesome, and honorable enterprise that it could and should be.
twk373 3 months ago
This isn't philosophy it's evangelism....
iggerdanus 3 months ago 2
@iggerdanus well said
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
Teachers. public school teachers. are preying upon children? My dear Stefan what an absolute idiot you are! You have the gall, heck the delusion, to call what you do philosophy? You are a verbiose fool.
iggerdanus 3 months ago
banks steal from all of us ffs... theyre good for nothing, unless theft is considered a virtue... and there will never ever be a true free market until all banks fuck right off and quit intervening between me and my neighbor, or you and your neighbor
peace :)
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam Well the big banks were set to fail about a year ago until the government gave billions of our dollars to them to keep them afloat. So who's to blame now?
TheStig000 3 months ago
simply put:
1)a bank just intervenes between two parties who want to do business.(obligor and creditor)
2)a bank falsifies a mans promissory obligation, which are really to another man-> (obligor to creditor), into a debt owed to themselves.
3)this misrepresentation of our promissory obligations by the bank causes much damage to an economy, coz the syphoning by banks of unearned wealth(interest) will cause circulatory deflation which leads to price inflation and a multiplication of debt
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
how can a bank, ever "loan" what doesnt exist? or what doesnt belong to them?
how can a bank forclose on something it never gave up or was the owner of?
banking is a scam... coz people like you believe in them and are silly enough to think money comes from anywhere other than people
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
just think... how can a bank (which is a building), or govt(some manmade concept) create money?
it cant
people are misled by thinking moneys created as debt or made from thin air, or whatever else dumb shit people say...
people CREATE money, by their(the obligors) promissory obligations, by delivering something of value to the true creditor (the person owed the thing of value)
also what does any bank ever puts up (its own lawful consideration) in any purported loan it issues???
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
stef, i count myself as a supporter of your views, but as someone who lived through the '70's in britian and still lives there :
a) margret thatcher is not a good comparison to Ron Paul;
b) the top people in commerce (the 1 %) that are robbing everybody , i'm just guessing of course, did NOT attend PUBLIC SCHOOL. those types went to eton, etc., PRIVATE SCHOOL. the old boys network.
5/10- could do better C+
DaddyFuManchu 3 months ago
Mmmm... wings deep in the oog.
: l
GiANtTWiNkY 3 months ago
Is Stef's work worth the price of a few pints of beer every month?
I think so and do an auto-donation each month.
Statists give to politicians...religious-nuts give to churches...couch-potatoes give $50+/mo. to the cable company...
We need to do likewise.
ashane77 3 months ago
Isn't that True News theme a rip-off of the Rex Murphy call-in show on CBC, Sundays? I have to compose a new theme one of these here days and send it in to Stef . . .
not2tees 3 months ago
"That which eliminates labor adds value to the economy." Well certainly not an absolutely true statement. Any "value" added is offset by some decrease in wages and thus spending. What I see today is people adding value to the Chinese economy and decreasing local. Those farm workers in a rural county are not going to work at a pesticide plant in Europe. So the locals lose. My air is polluted and fish don't live in my creek anymore, polluters profit while the rest suffer. It won't sustain.
JizzonTheDark 3 months ago
stefbot,,,,,given you believe so many of us, the great unschooled, are complete ignoramuses....who do you think is actually going to give a hoot about what you say. Much of which is so true...and is clearly a great ride for you.....but as you say we are heading off the cliff and so what do you do when you are heading off a cliff and you see a strawberry. If you are me you reach out and eat the juicy little berry. Gosh do you taste good. more power to your elbow.
Cardywhite111 3 months ago
@Cardywhite111
I don't agree with everything Stef says, but I think it's because he has a much more positive outlook of how we could all live together without some sort of organization that will use force to apprehend and punish those that harm others. You think I'm going to pay to lock up some guy that raped a member of my community. No. We'd kill him. Not for revenge, but to protect others by stopping him. Stef is preaching the Word, but he doesn't realize it. He loves u.
JizzonTheDark 3 months ago
@JizzonTheDark Thanks for that. But being a woman, being old, being my own person I realise there will always be someone or groups of someones who will want to control or protect one. Call them governments,tribes, communities, banks, organisations,, priests, teachers, parents, husbands, lovers, etc. For me life is a wheel which keeps turning. Everything repeats. Havent you noticed war and violence is so prevalent. Until we can live in peace there will be no change.
Cardywhite111 3 months ago
we had a "permanent underclass" in the fifties...we just didnt see it because we didnt have too much tv. We had a permanent underclass in the sixties, seventies, eighties etc....
Unless children are taught to be "creative" they will be naturally "creative". Which could mean they will decide to rob, steal, mug, wreck stuff, self harm get depressed and mentally leave the situation. We need to CARE. Unless the individual sorts out him or herself how can we proceed to help the children.
Cardywhite111 3 months ago
also, what does the "bank" ever put up (of its own lawful consideration) in any purported "loan" it issues??
this is a tough question... and it really doesnt have a good answer :)
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
youtube looks really weird on computer tonight...
somethings changed o_O
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
Its not society that is sliding into corruption it the elite that control society that is sliding into corruption
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
P2/2
Stef may be right, but refusing to be REASONABLE to people who were PROMISED a pension later instead of a good pay while working compared to the private sector is TYRANNICAL. It is the fault of politicians, not workers; they should be held accountable and stripped of assets before workers or taxpayers. There is a JUST way of treating the very low paid who calculated that a pension would make up for their low wage. Cuts should be applied according to pay, so that the poorest are not ruined.
CO2TROL 3 months ago
P1/2
@novices
If you are going to challenge a point I make, read my other posts too or your post will be out of context and non-applicable. Also, learn to use the *Reply* button, that way I know you have replied. Typing '@' before my pseudonym does not notify me.
Stefan makes a series of valid points and, as he often says, they are self-evident. If there were a No Shit Sherlock Award, he would be a choice candidate.
CO2TROL 3 months ago
"Anti Market Bias" And then blah blah blah, being poor is natural.
Convoluted self-rationalizations and declarations of property rights, nothing more. It's actually more violent sounding cumulatively than any State coercive act and interestingly enough that Ayn Randish spiel indirectly fuels the problems of so called government you whine about so much.
The gateway drug is $ and I find you "Free" Market Economists to be somewhere between a drug addict and a denial programmed Creationist.
MattSyTy 3 months ago
@MattSyTy
You're the one programmed for denial.
twk373 3 months ago
@MattSyTy As far as I'm aware of Rand was a minarchist of sorts and pro-free market, the problems of the state are due to the state abandoning the free market than anything else.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 The point I was trying to make is that the State and the "Free" Market are one in the same. They exist in a cohabitave finger pointing game with one another in suppression of environmental and social stability. One mutates into imposed subliminal advertising, the other turns into a Dystopian police state.
Private Property = Police, which also = Laws being made, which also = government. Everything you see today happened by design and now we're heading into uncharted territory.
MattSyTy 3 months ago
@MattSyTy Right and that point is wrong, a free market is defined more or less by the absence of government interference. A free market is where there is little to no government interference in the economy.
Imposed advertising? Yes cause the effort to change the channel/not reading an ad etc etc can be too much.
Yes I agree, property needs to protected, where you stumble is in your assumption that that protection has to be from the state, which is not true.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 Well, private property needs to be abolished. "Free Markets" or corporate anarchism needs to be slowed to a halt and restructured.
If advertising requires constant "effort" to change the channel or hence resist... that's an imposition on me against my will.
So how do you protect private property and pass laws without a state? Amuse me.
MattSyTy 3 months ago
@MattSy How would you make stupid youtube comments if you didn't have the right to own the means to make them, i.e. a computer?
Corporate anarchism? Corporations are a result of state interference in the economy, it's a business that gets special treatment due to the state.
Yes because not watching TV is such a human rights violation, christ this is getting absurd. It's not an imposition on you, is it an imposition on you if you see an ugly person? By your criteria it would be
contd.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@MattSyTy
You protect it like you protect anything else, with the implied threat of the use of force if you try to steal or destroy my property.
Just because the state monopolizes something in no way makes it therefore impossible for someone else to provide.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@MattSyTy Your "point" is nonsense, of course and is based on little more than assertion. All forms of property require protection, be they in person, "personal" items or other forms of private or "public" property. It only implies a state if you cannot think outside very limited parameters, in fact primitive ones.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth I really enjoy the "nonsense" dismissal. It clearly defines the gullibility and naivety of the common Anarchist/Voluntarist/Libertarian...whatever the fuck you are. The fallacy that their couldn't or shouldn't be a state or authority to protect property rights is beyond repugnant stupidity.
I do agree with you that private property is primitive. It's actually such a primitive mental perspective that it enslaves human society to such a degree that a State becomes inevitable.
MattSyTy 3 months ago
@MattSyTy *shrug* don't care. I'll continue dismissing it as nonsense. Also, I like how you snuck in "or authority" to cover yourself. Not all authorities are states.
And I spoke of your inability to imagine anything but a state protecting property rights of any kind, including those commies enshrine. The rest is emotive regurgitation bereft of any reasoning, so... enjoy the same dismissal with respect to it. -
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth - After all, most "commie" examples of societies are themselves primitive tribes, hence why many anarcho-communists eventually become anarcho-primitivists. So spare me the drivel.
Moragauth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Moragauth - After all, most "commie" examples of societies are themselves primitive tribes, hence why many anarcho-communists eventually become anarcho-primitivists. So spare me the drivel.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@MattSyTy
Lol, private property is primitive? It's literally the most advanced economic concept there is.
twk373 3 months ago
Actually, sorry, I shouldn't use the word "borrower", since the banks "borrow" nothing to people, instead use their own promissory obligation as a credit... The proper term would be "obligor".
To say "borrower", is very deceptive and misleading
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Don't confuse the fraudulent scamistry that passes for "banking" and "finance" in a centrally-planned world with legitimate free-market banking.
Banking has only become evil in the presence of managed interest rates and implicit (or explicit) bailout guarantees.
Take away the moral hazards, and banking will return to the honest and honorable enterprise that it used to be.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 legitimate free market banking? i highly doubt you follow what i said previously, or you would see how little sense that statement makes.
what is legitimate free market banking? and how is money created? do you think private banks or governments create money? or do people create money? and how is interest put into circulation, when i man loans 10000 dollars, yet has to pay back 15000?
and, banking... as an honorable enterprise?
what exactly are you smoking man tonight lol
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Legitimate free market banking: when a businessman provides a service where he pays individuals for the privilege of storing their money, which he uses to make low-risk loans to other individuals.
Money isn't "created." Anything that can be "created" arbitrarily (c.f., paper) is, by definition, NOT money. Whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable, and non-arbitrary pace.
So neither banks nor governments nor people "create" money.
twk373 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@twk373 says, "Money isn't created. Anything that can be 'created' arbitrarily (paper) is NOT money, whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable and non-arbitrary pace. So neither banks nor governments nor people create money."
twk373, your statement that I have quoted above shows that you don't know anything about "Fractional Reserve Lending" which started at 10% and is now less than 1% backed by gold, so Banks do CREATE money as debt
dreamdiction 3 months ago
@twk373 "Money isn't "created" (your words)... youre completely wrong, obviously money (at some point) IS created
"Whereas precious metals are money because they are mined (not created) at a slow, predictable, and non-arbitrary pace." (your words)
again, youre completely wrong.. precious metals, fiat (or anything thats used as money), is simply a secondary representation of each of our own promissory obligations to each other... which is what holds the real value and is how WE create money
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Obviously, yes, we create goods and services, and, yes, they are the basis of all promissory obligations.
However, goods and services are not money. There have been times in history were money did not exist, but goods and services certainly did. We call that "barter." Money is simply the medium of exchange for goods and services.
The entire point of money is that its quantity is fixed, so it can't be created arbitrarily (i.e., counterfeited). If it can be printed, it's not money.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
What people and banks (but not governments!) create are *goods* and *services*. NOT money; money is simply the medium of exchange for those goods and services.
I think you mean, "when a man *is* loaned $10,000, but has to pay back $15,000."
OBVIOUSLY, interest can't be (and therefore isn't) put into circulation. You are making the error of thinking in terms of money when you should be thinking in terms of goods and services.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Here's how loans work. What is actually happening is that a group of individuals are providing their own *saved* goods and services to another individual so that individual can consume those goods and services in the present.
Typically this "consumption" takes the form of 1) building capital equipment (which boosts productivity), or 2) building a house.
In return, the consuming individual promises to pay back the original goods and services, plus extra.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 youre completely wrong (again) about "how loans work"... but this is coz you dont seem to understand or see how we the people create money and not banks or govts, nor do you seem to understand what any money represents.
money is created (conception) when you or i sign a promissory obligation, which is a promise to deliver something of value(at a future time)
people create money, (or the thing of real value), from their promise to deliver something to someone
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Keep your made up definitions to yourself. Money: Definition: "A medium of exchange for goods and services, in the form of coins."
And you are exactly wrong. Promises do not "create" anything. I promise to build you a starship. Tell me, what has my promise created? In fact, what we create are goods and services, and we create those though capital and labor.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
Anyway, you are ignoring the last 7,000+ years of history: you can only use "promises" as currency if you trust people, but people are notoriously untrustworthy.
That is why the ancients wisely developed the use of precious metals as money, because precious metals have intrinsic value. Thus people are more than willing to accept coins in lieu of actual goods/services, because everyone values coin.
And after 7 millennia of proof, we can safely say that money = precious metals.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
So how does he (the present-day consumer) pay back the "extra" (i.e., interest) to the savers? Or, for that matter, the principle? Why, simply with his own his own goods and services, which he CREATES out of his own labor!
And the exchange takes place through the medium of a bank, because the saving individuals are willing to pay the banker some of the "extra" for his capital (secure vault) and his expertise in determining which individuals are sufficiently worthy of a loan.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 here, youre saying that people create money... yet several comments back, you said people dont... so, which is it?
you misunderstand the nature of money, the only thing of value is our promissory obligation, a persons promise deliver something of value...
banks dont create money... banks expand existing moneys that we the people create... but again, this is simply an obfuscation/mis-representation of our original promissory obligation
banks steal circulation, theyre not needed
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
No, people create goods and services. NOT money. People have not directly traded in goods and services (barter) for thousands of years, so to call goods and services "money" completely overlooks the purpose of money, not to mention its actual definition. The purpose of money (gold/silver) is simply to serve as a medium of exchange for goods and services, and the point of money is that it can't be created arbitrarily (counterfeiting).
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
I'm sorry, but your "promise" does not actually have any value. Can you eat a promise? Can a promise keep you warm, or surf the web? Hardly.
The only things with value are goods and services. (And the reason why money has value is because it is a type of good.)
But let's address this subject of "promises." Promises only enter when you are talking about loans: that is, when I give you something without getting anything in return except for your promise to pay me back with interest.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
But an economy would still work perfectly well even if there were no loans (promises), and you would still use money (coin) to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.
So saying that "promises" are the bedrock of everything is nonsense.
Of course banks don't create money. I already said that. But banks do provide a valuable service: namely, they protect your money (coin) from theft, and they provide you with a return on your money. And this is evil...why?
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
I do find it endlessly amusing how the "interest is evil" nuts place the blame on banks, when the blame really falls on the depositors who entrust their money to the banks in exchange for a return. Yes, of course, a portion of the interest goes to the bank to fund its operation and pay its employees, but the rest goes to the depositor: i.e., the average Joe.
Note that our fantasy currency system in which banks can counterfeit at will does not reflect upon the *principle* of banking.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
You don't want a bank? Fine. In 19th century America, no one would have forced you to use the services of a bank. Ultimately Ron Paul will return us to that situation.
But the rest of us, including myself, desire the services of a business which will pay us for the privilege of keeping our money safe. Yes, read that again. It's a win-win.
Sorry, but the reality is that banking is the second greatest economic invention of all time. It stimulates capital production, spurring growth.
twk373 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
So, yes, banking is a perfectly legitimate and honorable enterprise. You're just confused because you're drawing naive conclusions based on an (incorrect) assessment of how money is exchanged in the loan process.
But when you think of banking in terms of goods and services, which are of course the things that are *actually* being loaned, it is easy to see that banking is perfectly normal and there is nothing spurious going on.
twk373 3 months ago
@needparalegal stefs a great guy man and very sharp, but he's just confused, like so many, by this idea of the free market(as "austrians" see it)
There will never be a true free market, until we all stop allowing banks to issue our promissory obligations... Until we stop allowing banks to turn our promissory obligations(to each other-from borrower to true creditor), into a debt to themselves(bankers)... Stef doesn't see this distortion banks do as detrimental to the entire economy
ott0Kitam 3 months ago
@ott0Kitam
You have it exactly backwards. The problem is not that certain individuals are "allowed" to voluntarily safeguard others' money, loan it out, and issue "notes."
The problem is that we are *coerced* into using one particular bank note.
If there were no legal tender laws (as it should be), competing currencies would freely fluctuate according to their real value, and none of the problems that you incorrectly claim are systemic to the activity of "banking" would exist.
twk373 3 months ago
Is peak oil real?
willrod1025 3 months ago
@willrod1025 Not really. There is plenty of oil. But most of the world's oil is not anywhere near as cheaply accessible as the oil we've been burning up to now and much of 'that' is in fact running out. We will find new sources and new technologies will arise making expensive sources more economical. But that and rising demand almost certainly will lead to significant rises in oil prices as time goes on. This 'will' make some alternatives more price competitive however.
Panpiper 3 months ago
This guy really is not as bright as he thinks he is. He thinks the "free market" can fix environmental problems? He is right that it could solve labor safety problems if laws were just (ie, no "Tort Reforms").
needparalegal 3 months ago
@needparalegal Based on what is he not bright? You've not outlined.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@needparalegal
Fortunately, there are no "environmental" problems. Perhaps, in the grim darkness of the far future, humanity will be beset by externalities so terrible that only a central planning agency could save us.
Barring that, so-called "environmental" problems are really only property rights problems, and they can be easily solved by abolishing public property.
twk373 3 months ago
@twk373 You can't possibly be as stupid as you seem. You think toxins like mercury and fluoride are not a "problem". Well, they are not a problem if you are a rock or a cockroach, but for humans they create a few problems. In December 1952 12,000 people died from the Smog in London. How the fuck do you think your "private property" is protected from Plutonium 237 coming out of Fukushima and drifting east on the winds?
needparalegal 3 months ago
@needparalegal You're the stupid one here. Whether they are a "problem" or not depends on a host of factors. I'm not sure what your point regarding Plutonium is or if you even understand what you're arguing against based on it. Perhaps very little indeed.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@twk373 so so so wrong on so many levels.
coopmuch56 3 months ago
Margaret Thatcher is nothing like Ron Paul. She was a warmongering, nuclear fuel polluting, arrogant corporatist. Many experts believe much of todays problems started with Maggie Thatcher.
You can't have a country without taxes fools. In Britain, get rid of the police, the BBC TV and radio, the libraries, the schools, the military, the firemen, the nurses, the doctors, the courts, the roads, the rails, etc etc. You libertarians and right wingers are fools. You will pay for these things.
ManNorthern 3 months ago
@ManNorthern Make me.
i2aymond 3 months ago
@ManNorthern You can. Please, please get rid of the BBC before everything else. You're the fool if you think it is amongst things that are needed. I bet the stuff you say about Thatcher is made up assertions too for the most part. Leftists tend to vilify her whilst hero worshipping their own idols.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth No police, no roads, no military, no railways, nothing. You will be the first one complaining about it. You are a complete dinosaur. Your world is history.
ManNorthern 3 months ago
@ManNorthern Try arguing against actual positions held by anarchists rather than strawmen of your own fabrication. It is your debt-based world that is collapsing around you. I watch with glee as you pension-seeking, tax-mongering whores watch your "entitlements" stripped from you.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@ManNorthern BTW< of the things you mentioned, only some are "needed" and any and all can be provided by the market.
Moragauth 3 months ago
"I'm like barbie, i'm way too pretty to be good at math" LOL hahah
CowboyDoug38 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evil Thatcher cannot be compared to Ron Paul...please..
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
Comment removed
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
Comment removed
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago
lol margret thantcher was out ron paul . dont talk shit. switching off now
evilmeerkat007 3 months ago
@lajosflajos ahhh that explains it, thank you :)
airsoft4ever 3 months ago
Not just in England Stefan but Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland ! and did I hear you say Margaret MACTHATCHER ? or are you taking the piss? Because we Scots loved Thatcher !!!!...NOT and by the way the strikes in 70's were and are alot different from the strike that happened yesterday and for different reasons.
CoolCollectableToys 3 months ago 2
Interesting, so it's regulations that push jobs overseas? Well lets build a nuclear power plant in your back yard. And can we use your trash can to dispose of bio-hazardous materials? And you won't mind the noise and damage from us fracking in your neighbors yard, will you? Other desperate countries that may whore themselves for the short term $ gains, are nowhere I care to raise my family. 'Your' anarchy seems ok for sticks and stones application, but we are in a more complex enviroment today.
wyknot100 3 months ago
@wyknot100 It's regulations, yes. The rest is baseless whining and histrionics. Your response is just the sort of hubristic, whimpering idiocy Stefbot speaks of. What a load of old shit. "COmplex" enviroonment. Huh. So how is an institution like the state that is anachronistic in the extreme going to deal with this? Wishing away reality? You seem to find YT quite fine for dumping your ill formed/uninformed opinions and are strawmanning.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth Boo hoo! You don't like my opinions and I don't care for all of Stef's or yours. Now who's the whimpering idiot, or are you just Stef's bootlicking YT comment police? What is, is, now live with it or change it. But don't expect everyone to follow you. Some of us have our own ideas, ill formed/uninformed as you may believe them to be. Thanks for answering my questions, keep up the good work.
wyknot100 3 months ago
@wyknot100 You remain the whimpering idiot. I've no obligation to live with it. You bear the obligation to justify your nonsense to others since you advocate the imposition of initiative force against others against their better wishes.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth Wow obligation, advocate, imposition, and initiative force? Who knew free speach would be so offensive to a supposed anarchist? Lmao, you my good friend ARE the justification. I was just being a spotlight. Thank you so much.
wyknot100 3 months ago
i feel so alone, i know noone around who hasnt cut me out of their life because i tell the truth. how do i survive?
johnosstreeter 3 months ago
@johnosstreeter you have to learn to wear a mask
qedisk 3 months ago
@johnosstreeter You have to learn better ways of doing the telling. I have no shortage of friends and they all know how I think.
Panpiper 3 months ago
If corporations have too much power through the use of government, then the solution must be to reduce the power of government.
XulChris 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You all need to fire your entire public sector.
bweazel 3 months ago
@stefbot - Stef, I have a question for you about the way in which you communicate with your audience. You are a self proclaimed Anarchist and I assume this means that you reject currency and capitalism, but without this surely you would not be able to communicate with your audience via the internet, nor support this project... Is it hypocritical for anarchists to use outlets that are essentially the product of capitalism?
Cheers.
airsoft4ever 3 months ago
@airsoft4ever
You are operating under a wrong assumption. There are variety of anarchists, from anarcho-communists to anarcho-capitalists. Stef is, unless I am mistaken, an anarcho-capitalist; or free market anarchist, or voluntaryist, whatever you want to call it. While anarcho-communists reject capitalism, anarcho-capitalists do not. In fact they support capitalism, true capitalism; not the semifascist-communist-socialism we have now...
lajosflajos 3 months ago
Good video. i have donated. And will donate when i get more money :D
bestonlineguide 3 months ago
Your voice is so soothing man...I love the way your mind works and I have subscribed which is what I hould have done a long time ago!
donk525 3 months ago
It's not who votes...it's who counts the votes..
tillman40 3 months ago
"The government is a big pile of shit, and the corporations are flies looking to bury themselves wings-deep..."
Pure Poetry!!!
YJohannM 3 months ago 2
Brownie good, broccoli bad. Was that a miss quote from Animal Farm? ;)
VoxJoxx 3 months ago
...Id like to hear what you have to say about public sector workers who are doing work in high demand and whose services would be required in the private sector: nurses, doctors, paramedics, firemen, garbage men...not everyone is just digging a hole and refilling it...should these people hope for the collapse of the government and a better life in the private sector, or negotiate with their employers who are screwing them by hiring all the managers, box tickers etc
theMAXILOPEZpsycho 3 months ago
2 lattes a month...hahaha! lattes are massively overpriced!
theMAXILOPEZpsycho 3 months ago
See: Rationality and Social Choice
people.su.se/~guarr/Demokratikurs/Sen.pdf
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
See: The Possibility of Social Choice - Amartya Sen - Nobel Lecture
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
OMG the evil government! Tell me, why do governments change every couple of years, corporation owners not? Why are the corporation owners the richest, not the politics? I agree on many points with you but the corporations are THE problem, or if we go another step back, GREED IS THE PROBLEM.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n OMG!! From wikipedia: "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members." Greed is OK, theft is bad.
fleskebille 3 months ago
@fleskebille Well, if there were no state, do you think there would be no corporations either? No, they just wouldn't be regulated. And greed EQUALS theft in most cases because people just don't know to control it, so they do what's wrong, and it's real easy to break moral laws, that's why the state is here to enforce laws.
I don't know, i may have it wrong, but i still see immoral greed as the root problem.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n I think companies would be regulated by the market, actually being responsible for their actions now that the state is not there to exempt itself and its cronies from responsibility. The state is the antithesis to responsibility. Greed can be a good thing, really (like pushing up prices is "good" when resources are dwindling). If you mean theft, say so. The state is built on bads like theft and is supposed to do good with the loot.
fleskebille 3 months ago
2. Believing that the state will be less infected by "greedy", "selfish", "immoral", whatever, people than corporations is just silly. I do not consider things like: "bad" work environment, "low" pay, "high" prices, and such, to be punishable in any way. However, when you are selling a product, you have a certain responsibility to inform the buyer, and the buyer has a responsibility to question (things like third party certification, rating agencies and internet reviews/comments are helpful).
fleskebille 3 months ago
@fleskebille Think about it, those with money and power have the ability to control public opinion, they can control the market through monopolies, and if there will be no government they'll actually be able to "buy" their own police too... Don't take me wrong, the state does many wrong things, but at least it's responsible to people - corporations ARE NOT. And the bigger they get, the stronger they are, and it'll get impossible to limit their influence. BTW state=corporation nowadays.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n 1. "They" will not control public opinion. People choose what to believe, and "they" are not their cult leaders, unlike heads of state. They can buy some protection/police, but too much “police” will damage their competitiveness. The government has proven again and again that they are not responsible, because people are not holding them responsible, so they can do quite a lot of torturing, killing and putting innocent people in jail etc. It’s you who need to think about this.
fleskebille 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n 2. The state actually steals from people and makes monopoly money. A free market company just isn’t comparable. And whether someone gets away with tyrannical behavior will depend on people’s beliefs. I think it's unrealistic to expect that a private company could ever get this power, and if so, then you'd just have a state again, and at least an attempt to get away from the rotten system has been made.
fleskebille 3 months ago
@fleskebille About public opinion - do you see much government advertisements? No, but coke and McD ads everywhere, don't you think it influences people? Sure, people can choose, but not really, what about the children who may not be able to oppose unhealthy food for example if it's being pushed into their minds all the time? And you guessed very well, companies would get much stronger than the states of today if unregulated, and we'd just have a new form of "statism". Just without elections.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n "people can choose, but not really". You're just making unfounded assumptions. Don't know about you but commercials never had that strong an effect on me. State representatives don't need to buy commercials directly, they control/subsidize/influence/own media and they have the guns/legitimacy that make people listen, and so have a strong presence in the old media, oh and they "educate" the children... "companies would get much stronger than the states of today". Not likely.
fleskebille 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n "people can choose, but not really". You're just making unfounded assumptions. Don't know about you but commercials never had that strong an effect on me. State representatives don't need to buy commercials directly, they control/influence/own media and they have the guns/legitimacy that make people listen, and so have a strong presence in the old media, oh and they "educate" the children... "companies would get much stronger than the states of today". Not likely.
fleskebille 3 months ago
@fleskebille Commercials don't influence me either, so why are they there i wonder... look, media are owned by those who pay the most. Now again, how many commercials do you see for, say, obama? I rest my case. I would appreciate it though if you explained to me what's the problem with government education. I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT so i admit i'm being ignorant about this one.. maybe point me to a video here on youtube? I would really like to know what the "evil behind education" is.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n "I would appreciate it though if you explained to me what's the problem with government education."
One-size-fits-all, outdated educational techniques coercively financed through the money of others, perhaps? Oh and commercials definitely influence. That is their point. However, it requires a much stronger argument to show they can mindwash.
Moragauth 3 months ago
@Moragauth Hm, good point, the one-size-fits-all is problematic but i think it would require far more resources... AHA, that's your point! ;) Well there is some knowledge that sould be considered "common" though so i think all students should learn the basics of most subjects. You know, to make them competent in understanding the world. Outdated educational techniques... hmm, maybe, but there are new teachers every year... OK, i'll try to look into this deeper.
Anonymous247n 3 months ago
@Anonymous247n 1. Commercials are there to get attention of course. I didn’t say it had no influence on me, just not very much.
The problem with state education is, as Moragauth said, a one size fits all, everybody must pay even if the don’t use it (but they are compelled), top down, authoritarian/militarized system with state curriculum of course. It’s insane that the rulers in a democracy can decide what and how kids should learn. It takes away the natural desire for learning for many too.
fleskebille 3 months ago